Politically Liberal, Fiscally Conservative

Joseph Kennedy III is the grandson of the former U.S. president the late John F. Kennedy (Kennedy III). At a time when many people are skeptical of socially liberal presidential candidates because they worry that this means things like an unbalanced budget and large governmental control, Joseph Kennedy III appears to soothe their worries. Although he is the democratic representative, he tends to be conservative with things like a balanced budget, which helps him be an accessible candidate to more conservatively inclined voters. The area he represents goes all the way from Boston proper to the North Shore, which is interesting since those two regions fall on opposite ends of the spectrum politically, with Boston being overwhelmingly liberal and North Shore being more center/right leaning. Historically, the North Shore has been viewed as a wealthy, exclusive town of fishing villages, with a smattering of working class areas closer to Boston. Similarly, inner city Boston tends to be predominantly working class neighborhoods, with the incomes increasing the further from downtown one gets. Cambridge, Massachusetts, home of the prestigious Harvard University, tends to be more ritzy, and Newton, where I'm from, tends to be even wealthier (albeit predominantly Jewish and liberal). This is an important distinction to make because the income distribution has an important role on politics. For example, North Shore and Newton are relatively similar in terms of income, but the voting results of these two locales is vastly different. This plays an essential role in the ways in which politicians must position themselves on various policies.

Bierman, Noah. "Joseph Kennedy III charts different path in congress than hard-charging father" BostonGlobe.com. Boston Globe, 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 28 Sept. 2014

"Joseph Patrick Kennedy III." Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.

Kennedy, Joseph III, Representative for Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District." GovTrack, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.

Sameness: Keeping the Parties Together

In my home town, Pennsylvania’s 8th congressional district, we are represented by Republican Michael G. Fitzpatrick.  Fitzpatrick’s political career has proved to be an interesting one, after serving on the Bucks County Board of Commissioners- the former Lawyer- was elected to congress in 2004.  As an incumbent in 2006, Fitzpatrick faced Democratic candidate Patrick Murphy and lost re-election by only one percent.  After a short break Fitzpatrick again ran against Murphy in 2008, although this time he won.  After another victory in 2012 Fitzpatrick will now be facing Kevin Stouse in the 2014 election season- which he says will be his last term (Mike).

Strouse who won the Democratic primary, while only a rookie in the political world, would appear to be a strong candidate.  A graduate of Columbia with a masters from Georgetown, Strouse went on to serve as an Army Ranger and later in the counter terrorism sector of the CIA (Kevin).  These attributes aside, Strouse’s outlook for this election are not strong.  When writing about this 2014 race, bipartisan blogger Nathan Gonzales said, “GOP Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick is running strong in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, and his race with Democrat Kevin Strouse should barely be considered competitive at this point” (upd8).  While I believe this assessment to be a bit strong, most political analysts now call this race “right leaning”, often referring to Strouse’s slim victory in the primary: 50.98%.  Although, this race may not be the nail biter that his races against Murphy were, there is still a lot of interest that can be taken out of this.

What I find to be exciting about this race is how we can see the campaign style of the underdog.  Strouse moved to a tactic that has become rather common from today’s candidates, internet slander.  Right now, if you go to Strouse’s campaign sign you will find a link to a site called Fitz Fibs.  This catchy title is used to bring viewers to a page outlining all the instances where Fitzpatrick has gone against his word or hurt the Bucks County electorate.  This tactic has not only been taken by Strouse’s campaign, some of the harshest shots taken at Fitzpatrick come from online bloggers, who we can assume to be Strouse supporters.  One article even refers to him as a “Tea Party hero” (Thompson).  The most common criticism of Fitzpatrick is that he is a staunch supporter of the Tea Party.  But, what makes him a Tea Party member and where did he get that title?

The Bio on Mike Fitzpatrick’s supporter website is says, ”Mike has passed common sense legislation in a bipartisan fashion to move our country forward” (About).  In another article written about the race it says he is a, “ moderate legislator who aptly reflects the centrist politics of his constituents” (Dillon).  There is clearly a difference in opinions here if one group calls him a “Tea Party Hero” and another says he works in a “Bipartisan Fashion”.  With such opposing statements it would appear as though one group is blatantly lying.  Then we must turn to the facts, a sight which collects non-partisan voting data of candidates has this to say,”  Fitzpatrick is a centrist Republican according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship” (Govtrack).  So, if that is what the empirical data says, then one must assume that the Democrats are lying.  In another study conducted to judge how strongly candidates side with the Tea Party on their voting record it showed Fitzpatrick as being loyal 73% of the time (Tea Party Scorecard).  This data would then tell us that Fitzpatrick is a Tea Party affiliate and there by that the republicans have been lying.

So, in this race opinions about what Fitzpatrick is differs and data to show what Fitzpatrick is differs.  By this logic, he cannot be completely right and that he cannot be completely bipartisan.  As we look at the facts this becomes clear, but neither of the parties want us to know this.  They do not want us to know this because that means Fitzpatrick does not fit neatly into one of their boxes.  Mike Fitzpatrick is not a true moderate and he is not a true Tea Party member and this does not suit the party’s agenda because that makes him an individual.  The two parties want it to be a simple choice between one or the other, so when candidates begin to stray from the party’s agenda the parties try to reign them back in.

"Mike Fitzpatrick." Wikipedia. Accessed September 25, 2014.

"Kevin Strouse - Combat Veteran, CIA Officer, Family Man." Kevin Strouse for Congress. Accessed September 25, 2014.

"Upd8: 8th District "Likely Republican," Strouse Launches "Fitz's Fibs"" The Midweek Wire. August 28, 2014. Accessed September 25, 2014.

Thompson, Chuck. "Return to the Dark Ages." Burlington County Times. September 18, 2014. Accessed September 25, 2014.

"About Mike - Fitzpatrick for Congress." Fitzpatrick for Congress. Accessed September 25, 2014.

Dillon, Tim. "A Dedicated, Moderate and Effective Legislator." Bucks County Courier Times. September 25, 2014. Accessed September 26, 2014.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/michael_fitzpatrick/400646

http://www.teapartyscorecard.com/members/pennsylvania/mfitzpatrick/

The Man, The Myth, The Engel

Eliot Engel is a man. In fact, he may be the man. He happens to be a man who has served in the US congressional office since 1989 and has represented 3 districts over 12 terms in office. His constituency largely consists of people quickly approaching, or already at, the age of retirement and their elder years. When you look at Engel’s campaigns you won’t be surprised to find Medicare, social security, and veteran affairs on the forefront of his agenda. Those are his people, those are his issues, and that’s the way it has been from the start. Something interesting about Congressman Engel’s tenure though is the redistricting through his areas and how that has affected his career.

FairVote, a nonpartisan thinktank that analyzes elections and electoral reforms published a study breaking down the restricting after 2010 throughout the nation. (FairVote. "Monopoly Politics 2012". FairVote. 2012. September 2012. http://www.fairvote.org/assets/2012-Redistricting/NYRedistrictingAnalysis.pdf) It labeled districts as safe for respective parties, leaning towards parties, or toss-ups. Before the redistricting Engel represented the 16^th district, but now represents the 17^th. The difference in districts isn’t substantial and actually didn’t force Engel to change much of his platform. Both the old and new district strongly favor Democrats and are considered safe for the party to count as a seat before the elections roll through. It’s interesting to see how parties influence and approve of redistricting measures to secure seats for themselves, and make strategic decisions about which seats to sacrifice. For Engel this played out phenomenally as he now runs unopposed. It seems strange to me that Engel is so well-liked when he appears to play to the fears of his constituency.

Congressman Engel’s current district has about 36% of its population at an age where they are concerned with social security and the protection of their revenue. Though the mean income is only slightly above average per household at $76,000, when you include earning per household it more than doubles to $188,000. He pledges to protect their funds, which implicitly seems to play to the fear that they may lose them. These issues seem to be clear-cut historically in the New York area, yet Engel thinks these issues are far from over. To put an issue that has been secure on the forefront of an agenda makes a constituency question its securities and places doubt in the back of their mind.

Eliot Engel is not a bad guy. He wants to protect his people and keep them financially stable in a world of financial instability. At this point in the game though, he has the political capital to be a “big boss”. In a state like New York those progressive issues are a lot easier to address, but maybe with his voting demographic he just doesn’t want to rock the boat. It seems to be a missed opportunity that he doesn’t change his agenda a little bit to include an issue or two that is slightly more progressive.

Almost Too Comfortable

            Eliot Engel is the incumbent representative for the sixteenth district of New York. He has been a representative for twelve years so far, but has been recently appointed to the sixteenth district due to redistricting. He is currently running unopposed within the district due to the potential competitor being disqualified.

            Representatives in congress get reelected every two years, which makes getting things done within the districts very difficult. Some representatives are so worried about reelection that nothing really gets done within the districts, which can pose an issue. Races such as the race between Israel and Lally in New York could be very competitive and could lead to issues not being addressed within the district because of such a focus on reelection. While catering to the needs of your district is very important, I feel as though that has a tendency to take a back seat during elections. Campaigning starts to become the most important part of a representative’s time in Congress because of the short term.

            However, some might argue the latter. That because Engel is the incumbent and is not seeking reelection that he would be able to focus more on issues within the district and find ways to resolve them. While I agree with that as well, it also makes me wonder how much would actually be getting done, since Engel is not seeking reelection. I believe that everything will turn out the way it should when it comes to reelection, and that things will get done within the districts, however I think that it is important that incumbents also remain focused on the needs of their districts.

Mudslinging and Ranting: The Modern Attack Campaign

Defeating an incumbent for a seat in Congress is statistically improbable and yet many still try and fail without even having their name acknowledged by mainstream media. Campaign financing obviously overshadows the challenger (in most cases), which can easily demoralize a campaign. However, it is still interesting to notice the trends that challengers follow in attempting to upset reelection campaigns. The only viable option for challengers are to go into attack mode.

This principle is especially evident in the campaign between Democrat Incumbent Steven Israel and Republican Grant Lally in the campaign for New York’s 3rd Congressional District. Israel is a much liked Democrat in a state/district filled with Democrats, so defeating him would be nearly impossible. Especially when Israel's policies appeal to Long Islanders who don’t want their property value to decline and care about keeping the environment in pristine condition. 

Lally on the other hand is your average Obama-hating Republican lawyer. Lally’s campaign website refers to him being “President George Bush’s Manager of the critical Miami Florida Recount, stopping the Democrats from their attempted theft of the Presidency of the United States.” Clearly Lally isn’t going after any Democrat voters, which is a fatal mistake. The Democrat bashing doesn’t stop at his Bio page, it also leaks into his Issues page. Of the four (yes, four) issues that Lally has listed on his website, all of them refer to Steven Israel as “foolishly supporting” or something to that effect. All of them also refer to Obama in contempt for the Affordable Care Act, tax hikes, and for his regulations. Lally is actually making it impossible for any Democrat to even consider looking at his name on a ballot. He’s clearly focused on gathering the scarce Republican voters to elect him into office by practically having a hissy-fit over Democrat ideals. His campaign Twitter page extends the same Israel-Obama bashing in less than 140 characters.

Clearly Lally won’t win, with an idiotic campaign strategy, in a Democrat district, against an incumbent he is practically running a campaign as a form of satire. However Lally doesn’t have much of a choice. After all, the odds were never in his favor and so the only way to gain any footing in an election like this would be constant mudslinging. And that is what the structure of American elections has done; it has forced challengers like Lally to focus their campaigns on defamation by ranting and blaming until it gets nauseating for voters.

And Republicans are certainty not the only ones guilty of mudslinging, it’s everywhere and it has polluted the electoral field. Instead of getting a polished list of beliefs on certain issues and actual having intellectual discussions we’re left with some elections being decided by whichever party has the bigger populous. 

Center for Responsive Politics. “Reelection Rates Over the Years” Accessed September 25, 2014.

Grant Lally for Congress. “Meet Grant” Accessed September 22, 2014.

Grant Lally for Congress. “Issues” Accessed September 22, 2014.

Twitter. “Grant Lally” Accessed September 22, 2014.

New York's 10th

The Israeli Palestinian has plagued the US political system between those who either believe Israel's actions are too harsh or those who believe they are necessary. However congressmen Jerrold Nadler of New York's 10th district has a very one sided view, which is an intensified pro Israel stance. Over the current summer conflict, Nadler visited Tel Aviv where he stated that "No other country would be asked to tolerate thousands of rockets being fired at its population"(Nadler.house.gov) , this statement alone seems like Nadler has either catered to a specific voting group or has a personal connection to the Israeli government. In fact it is both, not only is Nadler Jewish, his district is also has the largest jewish population in the United States at 192,000 (Comenetz). Nadler who is seen as a progressive and is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus had taken a rather stubborn approach on Israel. Currently GOP support for Israel is around 70% while democratic support for democrats is around 46% (Rubin).

In a recent event near city hall, Nadler along with several other pro Israeli politicians, in which he supported Israel's recent actions against Hamas. Along with a poster created by a PR team from the Israeli military. In which he continues to emphasize Israel's unparalleled commitment to protecting its civilians first and foremost  Nadler however has a history of supporting harsh stances on regional opponents of Israel, like Iran. Along with fellow pro Israel advocate Chuck Schumer at a recent fundraiser in Flatbush,  Schumer stated that "We must do everything- I know Congressmen Nadler joins me in this- we must do everything we can in any way possible to avoid a nuclear Iran. And we will be leading the charge to make sure that Iranians know that they will not go nuclear or face the most severe of consequences". Soon after Nadler remarked that military would not be ruled out. The idea of a non nuclear Iran is not an uncommon occurrence among most democrats, but the sheer aggressiveness of Nadler and Schumer is. These views make both politicians extremely popular among jewish voters as illustrated through the standing ovation both received at the event (Barken). This along with the Israeli Palestinian conflict conveys a clear threat to Israeli security and thus captures the attention of the Jewish vote within the 10th Congressional of New York.

Nadler was elected to congress in 1992 and has been winning elections by landslides, most recently in 2012 with over 80% of the vote. He has on several occasions been a strong advocate on civil liberties, safe transportations acts and civil rights. However he has strictly emphasized his support for Israel and championed policy change in the middle east. This is perhaps the reason Nadler has received such support amongst the Jewish community in New York. By using such a strong defense of Israel he is able to overwhelmingly win over the Jewish community and thus win re-election by such large margins.

 

Work Cited

"http://nadler.house.gov/press-release/rep-nadler-israel-time-peace." Nadler House. Last modified 

     August 6, 2014. Accessed September 26, 2014. http://nadler.house.gov/press-release/ 

     rep-nadler-israel-time-peace.

Comenetz, Joshua. "Jewish Maps of the United States by Congressional District - revised January 
     2014." Berman Jewish Databank. Accessed September 26, 2014. http://www.jewishdatabank.org/ 
     studies/details.cfm?StudyID=719.




Rubin, Jennifer. "Polling shows Democrats need to self-reflect on Israel." The Washington Post. 
     Accessed September 26, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/07/30/ 
     polling-shows-democrats-need-to-self-reflect-on-israel/.




Barken, Ross. "Chuck Schumer and Jerry Nadler Rail Against ‘Nuclear’ Iran Read more at 
     http://observer.com/2014/03/chuck-schumer-and-jerry-nadler-rail-against-nuclear-iran/#ixzz3EOy2YKr0 
     Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook." New York Observer. Last 
     modified March 24, 2014. Accessed September 26, 2014. http://observer.com/2014/03/ 
     chuck-schumer-and-jerry-nadler-rail-against-nuclear-iran/.  

Tracey, Micheal. "ISRAEL'S BOMBARDMENT OF GAZA EARNS THUMBS UP FROM NEW YORK POLITICIANS." Vice.com. 
     Last modified July 16, 2014. Accessed September 26, 2014. http://www.vice.com/read/ 
     israels-bombardment-of-gaza-earns-thumbs-up-from-new-york-politicians-715.

Main Street Pat

Patrick Meehan a Republican from Pennsylvania’s 7^th congressional district is up for reelection. His opponent in this election is Democrat Mary Ellen Balchunis, a Political Science 

professor at La Salle University.  The 7^th district is a very safe Republican area which means that Meehan most likely will get reelected.  However, if he is not reelected it will show a dramatic political shift in Pennsylvania.

Pat Meehan is a pointedly “Moderate” Republican, he is part of the Main Street Republicans and has voted accordingly. As a Republican he votes against most of the Democratic economic policies, defund NPR and he endorsed and for the Cut, Cap and Balance act. However, Pat Meehan was one of the few Republicans to fully endorse the Violence against Women act (VAWA) and took part in the Protest of the House Republican “watered down” version.

The Cut, Cap and Balance act was a bill to cut federal spending by $111 trillion and to add a constitutional amendment with a cap at how much the government can spend. It was a Republican bill and in the House it was voted upon party lines with only two Republicans voting against it.

The House Republican Violence against Women act removed most funding for domestic violence groups as well as projecting a narrow view of what domestic violence was and who was “protected”. As a former Attorney General, Patrick Meehan is a strong supporter of the original VAWA bill and joined the Democrats in contesting it.

Mary Ellen Balchunis is a very liberal Democrat and endorsed by Bob Brady, Sierra Club, The National Organization for Women as well as local unions and environmental groups. She is pro sensible gun control, and supports the Affordable Care Act. This draws a stark contrast to Pat Meehan’s Republican stance on those issues. Mary Ellen’s victory in a Republican safe zone would be a radical change of pace for Pennsylvania.

Congressman Patrick Meehan : Home." Congressman Patrick Meehan : Home. http://meehan.house.gov/ (accessed September 26, 2014).

Kopp, John. "La Salle professor to take on Meehan; Brady gains backing." La Salle professor to take on Meehan; Brady gains backing. http://www.delcotimes.com/government-and-politics/20140220/la-salle-professor-to-take-on-meehan-brady-gains-backing (accessed September 26, 2014).

"Mary Ellen Balchunis - Congress | Home." Mary Ellen Balchunis - Congress | Home. http://maryellenforcongress.com/ (accessed September 26, 2014).

"The Voter's Self Defense System." Project Vote Smart. http://votesmart.org/candidate/119474/pat-meehan#.VCVwPBb46Fo (accessed September 26, 2014).